Talk:Forth Road Bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Forth Road Bridge has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 6, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
March 20, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
September 4, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article

Third[edit]

Hmm, I don't think it's a good idea to describe the proposed new bridge as the "third" [1], as things are a bit ambiguous. The trouble is that there's also a road bridge at Kincardine, and they're in the process of building a new road bridge beside it right now. So saying "a new forth road bridge" or "third forth bridge" can get one muddled. I'd suggest either "second road bridge at Queensferry" or "third bridge at Queensferry". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd disagree - I think people in the Lothians, Fife and Central pretty well associate "Forth Bridge"(s) with the ones at QF, and "Kincardine Bridges"(s) for the upstream ones. It'll confuse the tourists though - "third fourth bridge" ;) /wangi 21:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
But what I do think is confusing is saying "Second Forth Road Bridge" in the title, and then "third bridge" in the text - that needs to be consistent. Everyone else (i.e. the press) are just calling it the "new Forth Road Bridge"... /wangi 21:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

tolls for bikes[edit]

Can I put a bit in saying little motorbikes get to cross for free :)

It's already there in the infobox, but put it in the body if you like. You can edit it freely, everyone can! Erath 15:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I never even relised it was there- thanks :-) but what is the towns called on each side!!

Possible info addition?[edit]

I know one of the designers and some other people who worked on the bridge. Is there anything that anyone wants found out? I notice you are even missing one of the companies that worked on vital parts of it too! I'm happy to help if you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.17.161 (talkcontribs)

Please jump in and edit the article - i've added some links to your talk page to help get you started. Thanks/wangi 11:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Rowling Bridge[edit]

Rumors says some scottish MPs want it to be re-named for J. K. R. already. Cult of personailty at its best! BTW, You-Know-Who has a known penchant for bridge destruction so that may not be such a bright idea. 82.131.210.162 10:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I seriously hope you are kidding! Kennedygr 09:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe then want to name the new bridge after her. With the FRB in its current state I surely wouldln't want it named after a person (unless I really disliked them). --82.69.159.142 (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Name it after a fictional antagonist. Maybe not You-Know-Who but maybe Professor Moriarty? There's any number of baddies which could be used. How about failed politicians? Name it for Neville Chamberlain then replace it. - Denimadept (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Forth Road Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article is being reviewed as part of the WikiProject Good Articles. We're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. This article was awarded GA-status back in 2006, so I will be assessing the article to ensure that it is still compliant.Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Overall sumary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


A compreshensive wide-ranging article

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Some unreferenced speculation, with {citation} and {who}, flags removed during this re-assessment
    C. No original research:
    Some unreferenced speculation, with {citation} and {who}, flags removed during this re-assessment
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

This article retains its GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Considerable opposition?[edit]

Of the replacement, the article says "There remains considerable opposition to the project"; but what evidence is there that this opposition is "considerable"? Has there been some opinion poll about the project, or some well-attended march or rally? Failing that, we should simply say that the SGP and the Forthright Alliance oppose it. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 11:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

New crossing, new article[edit]

With the new crossing being confirmed and designed, and construction of the surrounding roads to allow movements to the new bridge already in progress - I propose a new article for the new crossing rather than cluttering up this article further. Any opposition? Matt-thepie (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have started a draft article on the FRC here. Contributions welcome. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
New article now in place at Forth Replacement Crossing. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Forth Road Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


Lots of odd dates and tenses[edit]

Much of this article was clearly written several years ago and speaks of things planned for the future that have probably happened some years ago. It needs someone familiar with the bridge to bring it up to date. Stub Mandrel (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Due and undue weight[edit]

I suggest the article currently does not meet WP:UNDUE as there is almost as much about the recent closure as there is about all the bridge's other attributes and history. It needs a good trim. There may be scope for a spin-out article. --John (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I took a partial hack at it. It probably needs more. --John (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Then you took the brush to other parts and claims to take stuff out under this banner, you need more than a day. --Crazyseiko (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)-
You still dislike this " Hind said "There can be no doubt that Transport Scotland were well aware of Feta board’s concerns about loss of key staff and the threat that this would have on the future management and maintenance of the bridge" Why? If this is going to be bother trying to FULLY explain the public inquire I think we should just put this into it own then. I'll give you, your due about getting rid of that pointless US accepted industry guidelines. --Crazyseiko (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)